The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-10-29
ESTABLISHED 1850.
j. II. EsTiLL, Editor and Proprietor.
BUTLER'S POOR SHOWING
HE WASTOO BADLY HANDICAPPED
BY FACTS TO DO MUCH.


Strong Argument For His Side of the
Case-A Belief That the Court viii
Not Grant the Writ as Prayed For.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2S.-When the United
States Supreme Court convened at noon to-
day there was not quite as large an attend
auce of members of the bar as yesterday,
but the seats provided for spectators were
all filled and the open spaces adjacent to
the entrance of the court room were
crowded with people, who stood there
patiently until the argument in the An
archist cases was concluded After the
usual ceremony of opening the court, the
Chief Justice requested Attorney General
Hunt to proceed with his argument,
which was interrupted by the ad-
journment of the court yesterday afternoon.
Mr. Hunt said that as he had almost
finished his argument when the hour for adj
journment arrived, he would not speak
to-day, but would give place to his associate,
States Attorney Grinnell. Mr.. Grinnell
addressing the court, said that it had not
been his intention to take part in the oral
argument, and that he came here primarily
for the purpose of assisting MIR. Hunt, bV
means of his familiarity with the record in
this case. He thought that by the presenta-
tion of the law aud facts yesterday it was
clearly shown that there was no Federal
question involved, and that the court was
without jurisdiction to grant the writ of
error. AsSignmt--t "a of error in the lower
court, and the parts of the record relating
TO jurors Denker and Sanford had been
printed and were in the courts hands. In
all the twenty-eight assignments of error
there was no reference directly or indirectly
10 the constitution of the United States, or
any of its amendments. There We're some
things he said, which were here generally
conceded, ard one of them was that the
constitution itself confer no rights which
need be here considered.
SIMPLY A LIMITATION.
1t is simply a limitation of the rights of
legislative power in desling with the rights
of citizens The constitution of the State
of Illinois contains almost all the provisions
which are embraced in the constitution of
the United States. This court had settled.
he believed. the question of jurisdiction as
far as the first ten amendments are CON
cerned and also, he thought, under the
fourteenth amendment. The only clause
of the latter which could figure
here was that mo State shall
deprive any person of life, liberty
or property without due process of law"
Whatever affects liberty and life is made
by this clause to affect also property. If
the court had jurisdiction of this case under
this provision of the amendment, theme very
State question relating to property, such as
special assessments, condemnation Cf prop
erty, etc, might be brought to this court
for review.
Chief Justice-Because they take property
without valuation bV a iury?
Mr.. Grinnell-YeS, your Honor; in some
cases they do, especially in the matter of
drainage, where the proceedings may be
before Justice Of the Peace.
Mr., Grinnell said he thought it to be con-
ceded that a State Legislature had a right
to prescribe how many peremptory chal-
lenges should be allowed in the formation
of jury The co lmon laws of Illinois had
been radically charged in this respect, and
both prosecutor ana defendant now started
on an equal footing. Each defendant was en-
titled to twenty peremptory challenges and
as the eight defendants inehis case acted in
concert and were all consulted, each of them
had practically one hundred and sixty per-
emptOry challenges before jury was OBJ
tanned, and the State availed itself of its
privilege to the extent of fifty two ,chalen-
ges. maintained, however, ,thatno Federal
question would be involved even if the State
allowed only one peremptory challenge to
one side and one hundred and sixty to the
other. 1t was the States right. In this
case there were nine hundred and eighty-one
men called into the jury box and examined
In order to obtain twelve jurors.
THOSE SELECTED SATISFACTORY.
No objection was raised to any one of
these twelve jurors, with the single excep-
ton of Mr.. Sanford Denker was chal-
lenged for cause and after a brief examina-
~. IL j IL
defense excepted, but they then proceeded
with a further and more elaborate examina-
ton of him and it is shown by
the record that after this second
examination they desired to keep
him, that they did keep him and that
they made no further exception. When
Mr. Denker was taken the defense had left
l42 peremptory challenges, and they could
have used one of these challenges to get rid
of him if they had been very desirous of so
doing. They had forty three peremptory
challenges left after eleven jurors had been
sworn. These forty-three challenges they
trittered away frivolously, foolishly
and ridiculously for the purpose
OF taking some possible advantage.
Their peremptory challenges were then
exhausted, and they had to either take ju-
ror, or show cause why he should be re-
Jected. The examination of Mr.. Sanford,
1hO ittsb CLEARLY SllDWSy NIL
said, that the defense was more ready to
take him than the State was. Not single
juror was put upon the defense to exhaust
their peremptory challenges. Whenever a
man said that he had talked with a witness
or anyone who was present at the Haymar
ket meeting, or that he had attended the
Coroner's inquest he was rejected for cause.
MODEL JURY AS A WHOLE.
Speaking of the jury as whole, Mr.. Grin
nell said: 81 wish and am constrained to
pay one tribute to that jury. 1t exemphfied
American citizenship in this country more
than any jury that was ever looked upon.
1t embraced all walks of life. Three of
them earned their living by manual work.
They came from all parts of the country,
and one Of them was born on foreign
soil. They were not a class jury.
They were honest citizens with the solemn
duty devolving upon them of determining
what should be done with these men No
Judge could look in the faces Of that jury
without saying they are intelligent, they
represent American citizenship, they are fit
To DO trusted with the rights of freemen
under our constitution There was not
capitalist ON that jury. They were all
commonplace small dealers and intelligent
men" Mr. Grinnell said ne would chal-
Ienge anyone to show that a single
member of the jury was not a competent
juror, not only under the jury law of ILL
nols, but under the common law, Congress,
he said, had recognized the right Of States to
make their own jury laws. Section 500 of the
Hevised Statutes provides that Jurors to